That was Windows 2000.

EvanAnderson 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The story with the Windows NT IP stack is nuanced, but it wasn't just lifted from BSD: https://web.archive.org/web/20051114154320/http://www.kuro5h...

▲

hypercube33 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

No I'm fairly certain that berkley sockets were used as a foundation to integrate a full network stack under winsockets so people wouldn't have to go buy things like Trumpet (Windows 3.1) and you could coax out messages saying as much from the commandline but Google is failing me (I'm sure most of this stuff is on usenet which no one seems to care about these days)

▲

zweifuss 9 hours ago | parent [-]

The history of the Windows TCP/IP stack went most likely like this:

IBM (NetBEUI, no TCP/IP) -> Spider TCP/IP Stack + SysV STREAMS environment -> MS rewrite 1 (early NT, Winsock instead of STREAMS) -> MS rewrite 2 (make win2000 faster):

https://web.archive.org/web/20151229084950/http://www.kuro5h...

▲

kalleboo 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's interesting how STREAMS pervaded everything for a short while (Apple's Open Transport networking stack for System 7.5 and up was also based on STREAMS) but everyone almost immediately wanted to get rid of it and just use Berkley sockets interfaces.

▲

justsomehnguy an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I still don't quite get how you should had communicate with the other systems over the network with STREAMS.

With IP you have an address and the means to route the data to that address and back, with TCP/UDP sockets you have the address:port endpoint so the recipient doesn't need to pass a received packet to the all processes on the system, asking "is that yours".

So if there is already some network stack providing both the addressing and the messaging...

▲

xbar 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Berkeley, for disambiguation.

	▲	kalleboo 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Oops, too late to edit my comment!